XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/22/2025 3:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/22/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/22/2025 2:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/22/25 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/22/2025 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/22/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/22/2025 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/22/25 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> You are getting closer, good job !   
   >>>>>>>>>> Anything outside of what they CAN do   
   >>>>>>>>>> is outside the scope of computation.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Nope.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> That just shows you don't understand the field.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting   
   >>>>>>>>> what you can ask to just computable things is nonsense.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Only those things that can be derived by applying   
   >>>>>>>> finite string transformations to inputs are computable.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Requiring H(P) to report on the basis of UTM(P) is not   
   >>>>>> derivable by applying finite string transformations to   
   >>>>>> the input to H(P).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Sure it is. Why isn't UTM(P) not a valid finite string transformation?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You are not precise enough in your use of the exact   
   >>>> words that I precisely specified.   
   >>>   
   >>> Really?   
   >>>   
   >>> What did I miss, that isn't you eqivocating on the meaning of your   
   >>> words.   
   >>>   
   >>> Of course, your problem is your words no longer have any meaning as   
   >>> you have admitted you reserve the right to change meanings when you   
   >>> want to.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> You can't limit the transformations to what are actually IN H,   
   >>>>> since that just breaks things as then every machine is correct,   
   >>>>> since it computed the transform that it defined.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There does not exist any H(P) such that P calls   
   >>>> H(P) and has the same behavior as H1(P) where   
   >>>> P does not call H1.   
   >>>   
   >>> So?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> H is only accountable for applying finite string   
   >> transformation rules to its input finite string.   
   >   
   > No, if H is being called a Halt Decider, it is responcible for computing   
   > the Halting Function.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> H is not accountable for baking a birthday cake.   
   >> H is not accountable for not using psychic powers.   
   >   
   > No, but to be a halt decider, it IS responsible to the Halting Function,   
   >   
   >>   
   >> H is only accountable for applying finite string   
   >> transformation rules to its input finite string.   
   >> Anything else is outside the scope of computation.   
   >>   
   >   
   > No, it CAN only do what is possible with the finite string operations   
   > that a computation can do.   
   >   
   > But it still is responsible to match the Halting Function.   
   >   
      
   Not in the case where this cannot be achieved by applying   
   finite string transformation rules to its input finite string.   
      
   > If it can't do that, then it just fails to be a Halting Decider.   
   >   
      
   Any result that cannot be derived by applying   
   finite string transformation rules to an input   
   finite string is outside of the scope of computation.   
      
   > It seems that you don't care if you mis-use words, so your words no   
   > longer have meaning.   
   >   
   > It seems that to you, "Correctness" is optional. If you give it the   
   > name, you can claim it to be so.   
   >   
   > Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You may call yourself a "Genius",   
   > but you prove yourself to be a stupid and ignorant pathologically lying   
   > idiot.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)